Weatherspoon v. LNU et al

Filing 47

ORDER Denying Plaintiff's 46 Motion for Reconsideration of Order Adopting Report and Recommendation and Denying Plaintiff's Motions for Default Judgment. Signed by District Judge Matthew F. Leitman. (Monda, H)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
MORRIS WEATHERSPOON,
Plaintiff,

Case No. 14-cv-12789
Hon. Matthew F. Leitman

v.
GEORGE LNU, et al.
Defendants.
_________________________________/
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
OF ORDER ADOPTING REPORT & RECOMMENDATION AND
DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT
On January 9, 2015, Magistrate Judge David R. Grand issued a Report and
Recommendation (the “R&R,” ECF #44) recommending that the Court deny
Plaintiff Morris Weatherspoon’s Motions for Default Judgment as to Defendants
George LNU, Angie LNU, Tammy LNU, Dr. Abdullateef, and LNU Woern (the
“Motions for Default Judgment,” ECF ##33, 34, 35, 36, and 37). The R&R stated
that the parties could object to and seek review of the recommendation within 14
days. (See R&R at 3, Pg. ID 319.) No party objected to the R&R within the time
allotted. The Court reviewed the R&R and agreed with the Magistrate Judge’s
findings and conclusions. Accordingly, on February 4, 2015, the Court adopted
the R&R as the Opinion of the Court and denied Plaintiff’s Motions for Default
Judgment. (See the “Order Adopting the R&R,” ECF #45.)

On February 6, 2015, the Court received Plaintiff’s “Motion Request for
Reconsideration to File Objection(s) and Request the Court Enter (Uphold) Default
Judgment against Defendants.” (See the “Motion for Reconsideration,” ECF #46.)
In the Motion to Reconsideration, Plaintiff acknowledged that he did not timely
object to the R&R. (See id. at ¶1.) Plaintiff’s failure to file timely objections to
the R&R constitutes a waiver of the right to further judicial review. See, e.g.,
Smith v. Detroit Fed’n of Teachers, 829 F.2d 1370, 1374 (6th Cir. 1987) (failure to
file objection to a report and recommendation “waived subsequent review of the
matter”).

Nonetheless, the Court will consider Plaintiff’s request for

reconsideration. See, e.g., Pocaro v. TD Waterhouse, No. 06-13834, 2007 WL
4327325 (E.D. Mich. Dec. 10, 2007) (considering pro se plaintiff’s post-judgment
motion despite plaintiff’s failure to file objections to report and recommendation).
On a motion for reconsideration, a movant must demonstrate that the court
was misled by a “palpable defect.” E.D. Mich. L. R. 7.1(h)(3). A “palpable
defect” is a defect that is obvious, clear, unmistakable, manifest, or plain. See
Witzke v. Hiller, 972 F.Supp. 426, 427 (E.D. Mich. 1997). The movant must also
show that the defect, if corrected, would result in a different disposition of the case.
E.D. Mich. L. R. 7.1(h)(3). A motion for reconsideration is not a vehicle to rehash old arguments, or to proffer new arguments or evidence that the movant could

2

have presented earlier. See Sault Ste. Marie v. Engler, 146 F.3d 367, 374 (6th Cir.
1998).
Plaintiff has not identified a palpable defect in the R&R or the Order
Adopting the R&R. The basis for the Motion for Reconsideration is difficult to
comprehend. Plaintiff’s primary argument appears to be that the Court should
grant his Motions for Default Judgment because he is unable to ascertain the
Defendants’ last names.

However, Plaintiff’s alleged inability to identify

Defendants’ full names is simply not a basis for granting the requested default
judgments. Moreover, as the Magistrate Judge explained in the R&R, this case is
governed by the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”), 42 U.S.C. § 1997e.
Because this Court has not directed Defendants to respond to Plaintiff’s complaint
pursuant to the PLRA, “the fact that none of them has yet filed such an answer
does not subject them to entry of default judgments.” (R&R at 2.) Under these
circumstances, Plaintiff has not identified any palpable defect in the R&R or the
Order Adopting the R&R.
For the reasons discussed in this Order, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that
Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration (ECF #46) is DENIED.
s/Matthew F. Leitman
MATTHEW F. LEITMAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: February 23, 2015
3

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the parties
and/or counsel of record on February 23, 2015, by electronic means and/or
ordinary mail.
s/Holly A. Monda
Case Manager
[phone]

4